Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed Martin Chris Nelson’s convictions for two counts of aggravated murder and theft by receiving a stolen motor vehicle. Nelson raised seven ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims concerning trial strategy, evidentiary issues, jury selection, and jury instructions. The court concluded that counsel did not perform deficiently or that Nelson failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by presenting a reenactment of the shooting.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by introducing evidence that Nelson was on probation.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to impeach police officers concerning the timing of the discovery of the victims' truck.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present a non-negative field test for blood on the trailer floor.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to discover a bullet lodged in a mattress.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the jury-selection and voir-dire procedures.
- Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the jury instructions concerning imperfect self-defense, lesser offenses, deliberation order, and unanimity.
Holdings
- A defendant asserting ineffective assistance must prove both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland; failure to establish either element defeats the claim.
- Counsel did not perform deficiently by staging the shooting reenactment, introducing evidence of Nelson's probation status, or declining to impeach police officers about the timing of the truck's discovery.
- Nelson failed to establish prejudice from counsel's failure to present the non-negative blood test or discover the mattress bullet.
- Nelson's jury-selection ineffective-assistance claim failed because he inadequately briefed both the alleged defect and resulting prejudice.
- Nelson failed to establish prejudice from counsel's failure to object to the challenged jury instructions.
Key quotations
“In order to prevail on his IAC claims, Mr. Nelson must show both (1) “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and (2) that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”” (¶ 10)
“Each of his seven claims fails at least one part of the Strickland test.” (¶ 51)
Factual background
Nelson shot and killed Chad Grijalva and Derek Davis at Nelson's isolated Utah ranch, striking each victim eight times, including an immediately incapacitating shot to the side of each man's head. Nelson claimed he acted in self-defense after the victims attacked him, but the physical evidence and his conduct after the shootings—including concealing the bodies, removing and repainting the trailer floor, dismantling a truck, and lying to investigators—undercut that account. The jury convicted him of aggravated murder and theft.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Nelson of two counts of aggravated murder and one count of theft by receiving a stolen motor vehicle. The trial court imposed consecutive life sentences without parole for the aggravated-murder convictions and a concurrent one-to-fifteen-year sentence for theft. On direct appeal, the Utah Supreme Court remanded under rule 23B for factual findings on six ineffective-assistance claims; the district court rejected all six, and Nelson appealed that ruling while adding a seventh claim.